Routledge Contemporary China Series, 119. London; New York: Routledge, 2014. xxi, 247 pp. (Figures.) US$145.00, cloth. ISBN 978-0-415-85515-0.
The edited volume, Religion and Ecological Sustainability in China, contains twelve articles which range from considerations of philosophical and religious resources in the Chinese traditions to reflections from on-the-ground, detailed accounts of real-world cases. The traditions considered consist of Confucianism, Daoism, Yijing (The Book of Changes), fengshui (commonly rendered as “geomancy”), and Tibetan Buddhism, along with some passing references to Chinese Buddhism; whereas those articles involving case studies mostly concern Tibetan communities of western China, with the exception of the final article in part 1, which deals with a village in southern China. The volume, as described by the editors, falls within the larger project of a search “for environmentally wholesome models of human flourishing from diverse cultural constituencies, religious systems and traditional lifestyles” (1). Despite the diverse disciplinary allegiances of the contributors, involving “social scientists, eco-philosophers, historians of religion and human ecologists” (1), perhaps the articles collectively could be loosely conceived as a kind of trans-disciplinary study (2). In terms of providing a general framework, the “introduction” provides helpful articulation of key terms, including a cultural interpretation of religion that includes secularity (4–6), and an understanding of nature as “a critical modern intellectual and policy concept” (7–8).
The volume is divided into two parts, entitled “Ecology and the classics” and “Imagining nature in modernity.” For the majority of articles in part 1, the opening article by Mary Evelyn Tucker and John Grim states the rationale for investigating the classics: given the ecological crisis which the world cannot ignore, the authors are engaged in the project of drawing upon the Chinese traditions for inspiration and instruction “because they reflect both timeless and timely concerns of the human spirit” (21). Other articles in this part include an examination of the significance of the terms di 地 and tu 土 in the classical texts (Deborah Sommer); an articulation of philosophical grounding for deep ecology through the Yijing (Joseph Adler); and an exchange on the rereading of (neo-)Confucian and Daoist classics conceived as “soft-hearted” and “hard-hearted” ecologies (Chen Xia 陈霞 on Daoism, Peng Guoxiang 彭国翔 on Wang Yangming’s teachings, with comments from James Miller). Also included in part 1 are two articles with somewhat different foci: an elaboration of biospirituality as “transgressive eco-spirituality” based on a study of medieval Shangqing Daoism 上清道 (James Miller); and an investigation of the rural tradition of preserving forests in their natural state for the sake of better fengshui, and what lessons this holds for the environmental movement (Chris Coggins).
Part 2 contains reflections from the ground up, and is concerned with “forces that are shaping modern Chinese conceptions of nature, ecology and religion” (11). Articles in this part include an analysis of religion within the social environment of the Chinese Republican era viewed through the theoretical framework of a secondary “landscape of fear” (Rebecca Nedostup); a study of the role of globalizing forces (namely, the introduction of new world crops, the Enlightenment, Buddhism, and the modern idea of conserving nature) in influencing environmental policies in China, and arguing for the importance of appreciating diversity in understandings of the natural world (Robert Weller); an investigation and critique of the practice of fengshui as a global phenomenon, and assessment of its compatibility with ecological concerns (Ole Bruun); a case study on Sanjiangyuan Nature Reserve—exploring the claim that overgrazing of the area, which led to the establishment of the nature reserve involving the relocation of the ethnic population, is the main culprit of ecological degradation of Sanjiangyuan (Qi Jinyu 祁进玉); a critique of Western environmentalism from the perspectives and experiences of Tibetan environmentalists in Yunnan Province (Emily Yeh); and a reflection on the intersecting of “natural landscape, religious practices and home-making” (220) in a Tibetan village in Qinghai Province (Dan Smyer Yu).
Despite this being a volume of divergent opinions with affiliations to different disciplines, it reads, surprisingly, rather coherently, its many voices offering glimpses of aspects of a complex and multifaceted issue. And one feels inspired, even lead, to form the following view—which remains, naturally, this reviewer’s
It concerns the place of the human in nature. A number of contributors, drawing from the Confucian tradition, appeal to Tu Wei-ming’s notion of an anthropocosmic experience of nature. For Joseph Adler, the experience speaks of a “common nature shared by humanity and the natural world,” and according to his consideration of the Yijing, this nature could be identified further as “creativity, and more specifically, moral creativity, which can be fully realized only by human beings” (49). The human then is viewed as the culmination of nature, and becomes nature’s affective and moral centre. From such an understanding, we have Peng Guoxiang’s emphasis on “sympathy, care and commiseration” (80) for all things, sentient or non-sentient, as the basis for a Confucian ecology; and hence his characterization of a “soft-hearted” ecology (80–81).
In contrast with the neo-Confucian anthropocosmic vision is a notion of a biospirituality in which the human does not occupy a privileged position, a notion that seems to find strong affinity with Daoist teachings (87). One possible version is found in what Miller describes as “transgressive ecospirituality,” such that the experience is one of “the world dwelt within human bodies, and not the other way round” (94). Thus, it is misleading to think that the Daoist has ceased to care (i.e., one reading of being “hard-hearted”) (71, 80), but that what one cares for is a consequence of the “human” differently experienced, in that the fleshly heart gives way to the cosmic heart of the dao(82).
While the foregoing paragraphs outline the point of tension between Confucian and Daoist positions, they need not necessarily be incompatible. If we adopt the view that Daoism often serves as a corrective to Confucian teachings, then the kind of Daoist biospirituality just mentioned points out the danger in adopting the Confucian vision unreservedly: Miller states, “Daoists have been distrustful of the central place afforded to the human heart in the Confucian view of human engagement with the natural world” (82). At the same time, such contrasting notions coexist—as seen in Weller’s study of the conceptions of nature in late Qing China. When embraced, diversity enhances adaptability. Weller states, “adaptability requires the maintenance of a pool of diversity—biological as much as human, among many possible natures rather than within one Nature” (161). It is a view well exemplified by this volume.
Peter Wong Yih Jiun
University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia